AGRICULTURE  APPROPRIATION  BILL 


HEARINGS 


BEFORE  THE 


COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE 


5 
322 


HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-FOURTH  CONGRESS 

SECOND  SESSION 


ON  THE 


AGRICULTURE  APPROPRIATION  BILL 


BUREAU  OF  SOILS 


Monday,  December  11,  1916 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
1910 


AGRICULTURE  APPROPRIATION  BILL. 


HOUSE  or  EEPRESENTATIVES, 
COMMITTEE  ON  AGRICULTURE, 

Monday,  December  11,  1916. 

BUREAU  OF  SOILS. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MILTON  WHITNEY,  CHIEF  OF  THE  BUREAU 
OF  SOILS,  UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now,  we  will  take  up  the  Bureau  of  Soils,  on  page 
127  of  the  Book  of  Estimates.  Dr.  Whitney  is  here  to  present  his 
estimates. 

Doctor,  your  first  matter  is  the  question  of  your  statutory  roll,  and 
the  first  suggested  change  is  found  in  item  2,  page  127,  where  you 
have  increased  the  amount  of  the  salary  of  the  chief  clerk  $220.  Just 
give  us  a  very  brief  statement  and  explain  the  reason  for  that. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  two  such  increases  asked 
for,  simply  on  the  ground  of  justice  to  the  men.  These  men  have 
been  in  the  service  for  a  long  while;  they  are  very  efficient,  and  we 
are  increasing  our  entrance  salaries  to  such  a  point  now  that  whereas 
we  give  a  person  $1,000  to  come  into  the  service  we  are  giving  our 
higher  grade  clerks  only  $1,800,  and  in  one  case  it  is  $2,000.  Now, 
the  difference  between  $1.000  for  an  entrance  salary  and  $1,800  for 
a  man  who  has  spent  his  life  in  the  department  and  who  is  qualified 
to  take  supervisory  work  and  be  really  an  executive  clerk  is  only 
$800.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  justified  in  asking  for  an  increase 
for  these  more  efficient  clerks. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Doctor,  I  notice  your  first  clerk  has  been  in  the 
department  for  20  years  and  has  held  his  present  position  without 
promotion  for  15  years.  I  take  it,  of  course,  that  this  man  must  be 
a  very  efficient  man. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  He  is. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  old  a  man  is  he? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Now,  that  is  hard  for  me  to  say. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Approximately. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  A  young  man. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  About  my  age,  then? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Oh,  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  He  has  had  no  promotioti  and  has  had  no  in- 
crease in  salary? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  No,  sir.    The  other  case  is  that  of  Mr.  Seaton. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  That  is  item  4? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes,  sir.  He  has  been  22  years  in  the  department 
and  it  has  been  13  years  since  he  has  had  any  increase  of  salary.  He 

313 


314  AGRICULTURE  APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

is  now  getting  $1,800,  and  he  is  a  very  efficient  man.  He  is  in  charge 
of  the  editorial  section  of  the  bureau,  editing  all  the  reports,  being 
responsible  for  the  manner  of  treatment  of  each  report.  He  does  very 
efficient  work. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right,  Doctor.  Your  next  change  is  in  item  20, 
where  there  seems  to  be  a  transfer  of  one  laboratory  helper  from  the 
lump  fund  for  investigation  of  fertilizer  resources.  Is  that  at  the 
same  salary  ? 

Mr  WHITNEY.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  the  lump  fund  been  reduced  ? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  It  has  been  reduced. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  say  to  item  21  ? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  It  is  the  same  thing.  The  lump  fund  has  been 
reduced. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  all,  Doctor? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  That  is  all  the  changes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Very  good. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  Pardon  me.  The  doctor  spoke  of  the  salary 
at  the  beginning  of  work  and  he  named  $1,000  as  the  salary.  I  see 
there  are  five  clerks  at  $900.  Evidently  there  is  a  lower  grade  than 
you  spoke  of. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes;  but  we  are  finding  it  exceedingly  difficult  to 
get  people  in  at  those  salaries.  We  are  finding  it  very  difficult  to 
get  people  in  at  less  than  $1,000. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  I  should  think  you  would  at  the  present  time. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  There  are  some  in  item  11,  five  clerks  at  $900, 
who  have  been  in  that  position  and  drawn  that  salary  for  a  long  time. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes:  there  are  some  who  have  been  there  quite  a 
while,  but  those  I  have  in  mind  came  in  a  number  of  years  ago 
before  the  Civil  Service  covered  all  of  these  positions.  They  came 
in  at  $50  a  month.  $600  a  year,  and  they  have  been  promoted  from 
time  to  time.  I  think  it  \vas  last  year  or  the  year  before  when  our 
lower  grade  clerks  were  raised  to  $900. 

Mr.  HELGESON.  The  men  are  not  interested  so  much  in  the  amount 
they  get  as  they  are  in  being  promoted  ? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  No ;  they  are  interested  in  both,  I  think. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  character  of  the  work? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Routine  work. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Field  work?  • 

Mr.  WTHITNEY.  No,  sir;  clerical  work,  routine  clerical  work. 

Mr.  HELGLSEN.  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  get  men  to  do  clerical 
work  and  do  it  intelligently  for  $900  a  year. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Most  all  of  them  are  women. 

Mr.  HELGESEN.  But  if  they  do  efficient  work  they  are  worth  as 
much  as  men. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Oh,  yes,  sir.  We  could  get  them  at  $50  a  month 
in  Washington,  if  we  could  take  them  from  the  district,  but  we 
have  to  apportion  them  all  over  the  country,  and  you  can  not  get 
people  here  from  Montana,  for  instance. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  We  occasionally  have  to  get  along  without  a  corn 
crop  in  Iowa,  and  it  is  hard  to  get  along;  it  is  rather  difficult  to  get 
along.  Some  of  our  farmers  have  a  hard  enough  time  getting  $50 
a  month. 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL.  315 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  Well,  just  because  some  fellow  has  hard  luck  is 
no  reason  why  the  Government  should  ask  a  clerk  to  work  for  a  low 
salary. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  It  is  a  question  of  whether  you  are  going  to  tax  the 
people  who  do  not  get  anything  to  pay  for  the  fellows  who  are  in 
hard  luck. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  I  would  be  very  glad  to  see  the  entrance  salary 
raised,  but  I  would  also  be  very  glad  to  raise  the  salaries  of  these 
efficient  clerks  who  have  been  in  the  department  so  long. 

Mr.  STEELE.  Are  you  also  in  favor  of  putting  an  embargo  on  the 
farmers'  products? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Iowa  is  heard  from  again.  All  right,  Doctor. 
Your  next  item  is  number  30,  on  page  128,  for  chemical  investigations 
of  soil  types,  soil  composition,  and  soil  minerals,  and  so  forth.  You 
ask  an  increase  of  $5,000.  Tell  us  about  that  increase. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  I  have  Dr.  Shorey  here,  and  I  would  like  to  have 
him  explain  that,  if  you  would  like  to  hear  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  shall  be  very  glad  to  hear  him. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  E.  C.  SHOREY,  BIOCHEMIST  IN  CHARGE  OF 
SOIL-CHEMICAL  INVESTIGATIONS,  BUREAU  OF  SOILS,  UNITED 
STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

Dr.  SHOREY.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  the  reason  for  this  increase 
is  rather  explicitly  stated  in  the  estimates.  The  $5,000  is  covered  in 
three  items — $2,000  to  be  devoted  to  increase  of  facilities  for  making 
analyses  of  soils  that  are  required  by  the  soil  survey,  $1,000  for  in- 
crease of  facilities  for  doing  what  we  call  routine  work;  that  is, 
analytical  work  that  is  requested  by  other  bureaus  of  the  department 
and  sometimes  by  other  departments.  This  work  has  been  growing 
from  year  to  year  without  any  increase  in  the  appropriation.  Last 
year  we  used  for  routine  work  about  one-third  of  the  appropriation 
for  chemical  investigations. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  In  the  note  on  page  129  you  say  you  want  $1,000 
to  meet  the  increasing  demands  from  other  bureaus  of  the  depart- 
ment for  routine  analytical  work.  There  is  no  part  of  that  work, 
I  suppose,  in  connection  with  the  Forestry  Bureau  where  your  bureau 
cooperated  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  quality  of  the  soil 
in  the  forest  areas? 

Dr.  SHOREY.  The  work  that  comes  under  that  head  comes  from 
nearly  all  the  other  bureaus  of  the  department,  occasionally  from 
the  Forest  Service,  but  mostly  from  the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry 
and  the  Office  of  Roads  and  Rural  Engineering. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  There  is  a  separate  appropriation  for  that 
work  ? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes;  there  is  a  special  appropriation  for  exami- 
nation of  lands  in  cooperation  with  the  Forest  Service. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  there  is  $2,000  to  extend  investigations  in 
the  liming  of  soils. 

Dr.  SHOREY.  There  is  $2,000  proposed  to  be  spent  on  a  project 
entitled  "liming  of  soils."  There  is  a  great  deal  of  interest  being 
shown  just  now  in  the  agricultural  use  of  lime,  the  treatment  of  the 
soil  with  lime.  Some  investigational  work  is  now  being  carried  on 


316  AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

with  a  view  to  ascertaining  the  chemical  changes  brought  about  by 
liming  the  soil,  and  it  is  desired  to  extend  this  investigation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  there  any  increase  in  this  item  last  year  ? 

Dr.  SHOREY.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  long  has  this  item  stood  at  this  figure  ? 

Dr.  SHOREY.  I  think  it  has  been  at  the  same  figure  for  four  years. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MILTON  WHITNEY,  CHIEF  OF  THE  BUREAU 
OF  SOILS,  UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE— 
Continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Dr.  Whitney,  item  31  is  for  physical  investiga- 
tions of  the  important  properties  of  soil.  There  seems  to  be  no 
change  in  that  item. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  There  is  no  change  there. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  research  work? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Research  work;  yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  have  been  continuing  it  along  the  same 
lines  that  you  have  been  doing  it  for  some  years? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  will  ask  you,  as  I  asked  Dr.  Alsberg,  to  sum- 
marize for  us  in  the  record  your  work  for  the  present  year,  and  if 
you  have  discovered  any  striking  things  that  ought  to  be  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  committee,  just  give  that  to  us.  I  will  not  ask 
you  to  do  it  here,  because  we  are  trying  to  save  time,  but  put  it  in 
your  statement. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  I  will  be  glad  to  do  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Item  32,  on  page  130,  for  exploration  and  investi- 
gation within  the  United  States  to  determine  possible  sources  of 
supply  of  potash,  nitrates,  and  other  natural  fertilizers,  $33,380T 
which  is  an  apparent  but  not  an  actual  decrease. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Doctor,  in  looking  over  these  estimates  the  other 
night  I  was  wondering  if  the  time  is  not  pretty  near  w7hen  you  can 
reduce  that  item  very  materially.  You  have  about  as  much  informa- 
tion about  potash,  I  suppose,  as  you  will  ever  get.  These  things 
seem  to  be  taking  a  very  definite  shape. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Of  course,  the  potash  situation  has  narrowed  down 
to  a  certain  point.  We  have  a  special  appropriation  to  look  after 
that.  The  utilization  of  phosphates,  the  preparation  of  phosphoric 
acid,  and  the  combination  of  that  with  other  elements,  wrhile  it  is 
in  a  well-advanced  state,  is  far  from  completed;  it  is  at  the  point 
where  we  have  a  pretty  comprehensive  view  of  what  is  ultimately 
to  be  done  and  we  want  to  finish  it,  which  will  depend  upon  the  re- 
adjustment after  the  present  unsettled  conditions  have  been  solved. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  continuing  under  this  item,  Doctor,  to 
undertake  to  locate  different  sources  of  potash,  nitrates,  and  phos- 
phates, and  the  like  ? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  No;  it  is  more  the  utilization  of  those  we  have 
found. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  original  purpose  of  this  item  was  to  enable 
the  department  to  see  if  they  could  discover  any  sources  of  fertilizers 
in  this  country. 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION    BILL.  317 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes,  sir ;  to  discover  or  develop  such  sources. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  somewhat  getting  away  from  the  purpose 
of  the  item  and  going  into  a  study  of  the  utilization  of  these  ferti- 
lizers. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  I  think  it  is  rather  a  culmination  of  our  earlier 
work  in  a  further  study  of  the  possibilities  of  utilizing  what  we  have 
found.  It  is  the  possibilities  now  of  utilizing  what  the  original 
work  showed  us  to  exist.  I  think  that  is  answering  the  question. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Were  these  kelp  beds  discovered  by  your  people? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes,  sir.     We  first  called  attention  to  them. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  progress  are  we  making? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Let  us  wait  until  we  get  to  that  item. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Well,  this  deals  with  nitrates,  and  I  thought  it  was 
the  same  thing. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Now,  at  the  same  time,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  went 
into  the  study  of  phosphates,  the  possibility  of  utilizing  low-grade 
phosphates,  the  possibility  of  putting  to  practical  use  the  material 
that  is  now  being  thrown  away  in  vast  quantities,  millions  of  tons 
being  thrown  away  on  the  dump  heaps.  Now,  we  have  really  dis- 
covered those  things,  but  the  discoATery  is  of  no  use  until  we  have 
seen  whether  our  discovery  is  of  any  practical  value.  We  are  work- 
ing on  the  possibilities  of  utilizing  these  things  we  have  found  in 
order  that  we  may  come  here  and  say  that  we  have  done  so-and-so. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Have  you  discovered  any  new  source  of  supply 
recently  ? 

Mr.  "WHITNEY.  Well,  we  have  the  potash  situation  now  well  in 
hand.  In  the  nitrate  situation  we  are  cooperating  with  the  War 
Department  and  the  Bureau  of  Mines  in  the  study  of  the  possibility 
of  using  atmospheric  nitrogen. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  And  that  has  been  disposed  of.  We  made  an  appro- 
priation, and  a  plant  is  to  be  established. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes;  an  appropriation  was  made. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  And  that  is  a  thing  of  the  past.  That  has  gone 
beyond  the  experimental  stage. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  No;  I  beg  your  pardon.  We  are  experimenting 
for  the  purpose  of  advising  them.  That  plant  has  not  been  estab- 
lished yet.  The  work  that  we  did  at  Arlington  has  been  utilized, 
and  some  of  the  apparatus  we  had  there  has  been  shipped  to  Syra- 
cuse, and  one  of  our  men  is  working  with  the  War  Department, 
the  Bureau  of  Mines,  and  the  Solvay  Co.  on  that  problem. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Doctor,  can  you  state  definitely  what  we  have 
accomplished  at  Arlington 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  If  I  am  not  taking  up  too  much  time,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No.  Doctor,  you  are  paying  for  the  Arlington 
work  out  of  this  fund? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes.  I  have  Mr.  Brown  here,  who  is  in  charge  of 
that  work,  and  I  would  like  to  have  him  explain  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right,  Mr.  Brown. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Give  us  the  results  that  have  been  accomplished. 


318  AGRICULTURE  APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  F.  W.  BROWN,  ASSISTANT  IN  CHARGE  OF 
INVESTIGATIONS  OF  FERTILIZER  RESOURCES,  BUREAU  OF 
SOILS,  UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Mr.  Chairman,  so  far  as  nitrogen  is  concerned,  we 
have  investigated  the  process,  which  is  well  known  in  Europe  but 
the  details  of  which  are  not  known  in  this  country,  for  oxidizing 
by-product  ammonia  to  produce  nitric  acid  and  nitrates.  We  put 
up  an  apparatus — I  think  it  was  the  first  in  operation  in  this  coun- 
try— and  had  it  working,  and  we  were  actually  producing  nitric 
acid.  Then  the  $20,000,000  bill  was  passed,  and  the  War  Department, 
in  cooperation  with  the  Bureau  of  Mines,  the  Bureau  of  Soils,  and 
the  Solvay  Chemical  Co.,  set  up  a  large  experimental  plant  in  one 
of  the  buildings  of  the  Solvay  Co.  We  scrapped  our  plant  and 
shipped  part  of  it  to  the  site  of  the  cooperative  plant.  We  have  the 
balance  of  it — I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  we  scrapped  it  all.  We  can 
use  it  if  it  is  necessary. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Where  did  you  transfer  it? 

Mr.  BROWN.  To  Solvay,  N.  Y.,  to  the  chemical  company  there. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  They  carry  it  on  at  New  York? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes,  sir.  Not  on  a  laboratory  scale,  but  on  a  large 
scale,  producing  nitric  acid  by  the  ton. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  It  is  a  large  plant? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  I  have  reference  to  the  $20,000,000  plant. 

Mr.  BROWN.  That  is  not  the  $20,000,000  plant.  There  is  nothing 
official  about  it,  so  far  as  I  know,  but  I  understood  that  it  was  being 
partly  financed  by  the  W^  Department  out  of  the  $20,000,000  fund, 
though  I  can  not 'state  definitely. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  But  that  is  simply  an  experiment? 

Mr.  BROWN.  A  preliminary  investigation. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Has  the  department  decided  on  a  location? 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  do  not  know.  So  far  as  phosphoric  acid  is  concerned 
we  have  a  very  interesting  experiment,  and  I  believe  a  very  important 
one,  which  we  have  completed  in  the  last  six  months,  and  that  is  the 
electrical  treatment  of  phosphate  rock,  or  the  smelting  of  phosphate 
rock  in  an  electric  furnace  and  the  collection  of  the  phosphoric  acid 
by  means  of  electrical  precipitation. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Have  you  discovered  anything  or  made  any  new 
discoveries  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  This  is  absolutely  new? 

Mr.  BROWN.  This  is  absolutely  new.  This  has  never  been  done  any- 
where else  in  the  world  except  at  our  plant  at  Arlington.  Now,  we 
have  collected  acid  there  which  is  purer  than  any  chemically  pure 
acid  we  can  buy  in  the  market  for  experimental  purposes.  We  get  it 
99^  per  cent  pure  and  so  concentrated  that  when  it  is  drawn  into  a 
container  and  cools  it  crystallizes  into  a  solid. 

Mr.  STEELE.  When  you  shipped  the  experimental  machinery  that 
you  had,  did  you  send  the  plans  and  specifications  along  with  it  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  sent  a  man  along  with  it.  I  have  a  man  cooperating 
and  he  took  our  plans  and  part  .of  our  apparatus  with  him. 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATIOX   BILL.  319 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  So  that  the  three  of  you  are  cooperating  in  this  work  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  The  Solvay  Co.,  the  War  Department,  the  Bureau  of 
Mines,  and  the  Bureau  of  Soils. 

Mr.  HELGESEX.  What  is  this  company,  a  private  corporation  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes,  sir.  They  own  patents  on  the  purification  of  by- 
product ammonia. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  Is  that  at  Syracuse  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  It  is  just  outside  of  Syracuse. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  I  do  not  know  that  I  am  very  clear  as  to  what  we 
are  getting1  out  of  Arlington. 

Mr.  BROWN.  In  regard  to  potash,  we  have  been  conducting  exami- 
nations and  investigations  last  year  with  samples  of  cement  from  all 
over  the  United  States.  There  are  two  or  three  plants  that  are  col- 
lecting flue  dust  by  means  of  the  electrical  precipitator  and  selling  it 
right  to  the  trade  on  a  percentage  basis  for  its  potash  content. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Now,  that  is  what  they  are  doing.  What  are  we 
doing  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  It  is  probable  that  most  of  the  cement  manufacturers 
in  the  United  States  are  volatilizing  potash ;  that  it  is  passing  off  into 
the  air,  and  it  is  a  matter  that  they  should  be  shown. 

Mr.  HALOGEN.  And  you  would  show  them? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  are  showing  them  now.  We  have  secured  in  the 
last  few  weeks,  or  the  last  month  or  so,  information  which  showed 
that  one  company  is  volatilizing  over  $1,000.000  of  potash  from  their 
plant.  I  am  going  up  to  see  them  in  a  few  days  to  have  a  conference 
with  their  representatives. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Is  that  due  to  your  investigations? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Not  to  mine,  but  to  those  of  Dr.  Ross. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  I  mean  not  personally,  but  the  bureau. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  It  is  something  entirely  new  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Something  new. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  And  it  is  a  discovery  made  by  the  department? 

Mr.  BROWN.  No.  The  discovery  was  made"  out  at  Riverside,  Cal., 
where  a  cement  mill  was  compelled  to  put  in  one  of  these  precipita- 
tors  to  protect  the  orange  groves  from  the  dust.  Many  other  mills 
have  not  taken  it  up  yet.  We  have  got  samples  from  all  over  the 
country  and  we  are  determining  exactly  the  amount  that  is  being 
lost  from  any  one  mill,  and  we  can  then  call  the  attention  of  the 
manufacturer  to  the  fact  that  he  is  throwing  it  away. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Then  you  feel  you  have  been  of  some  service  to  these 
manufacturers? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Can  you  state  to  what  extent — the  saving  of  how 
many  millions  of  dollars  did  you  say? 

Mi-.  BROWN.  Well,  one  concern  is  now  volatilizing  about  $1,000,000 
worth  of  potash,  at  the  present  price  of  potash. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  As  a  result  of  your  investigations  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  No;  but  as  a  result  of  our  investigations  we  have 
shown  them  that  they  were  doing  that.  They  are  not  saving  it  yet, 
but  they  will. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Do  all  cement  plants  use  about  the  same  amount  of 
potash  ? 


320  .          AGEICULTTJRE   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

Mr.  BROWN.  No.  It  all  depends.  Some  of  them  use  slag  and  do 
not  get  any  potash.  For  instance,  there  is  one  plant  operating  at 
Duluth  and  using  a  precipitator  which  secures  no  potash  at  all  in 
the  dust. 

Mr.  OVERMYER.  Do  vou  know  anything  about  the  plants  in  northern 
Ohio? 

Mr.  BROWN.  No;  I  do  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Anything  further?  If  not,  Dr.  Whitney,  take 
up  item  33,  for  the  'investigation  and  demonstration  within  the 
United  States  to  determine  the  best  methods  of  obtaining  potash  on 
a  commercial  scale,  including  the  establishment  and  equipment  of 
such  plant  or  plants  as  may  be  necessary  therefor,  $175,000.  That 
item  seems  to  be  dropped.  At  this  point  I  think  it  well  to  read  a 
letter  just  received  from  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture  under  date  of 
December  7,  1916. 

(The  letter  referred  to  follows:) 

DECEMBER  7,  1916. 
Hon.  A.  F.  LEVER, 

Chairman  Committee  on  Agriculture,  House  of  Representatives. 

DEAR  MR.  LEVER:  No  estimate  has  been  submitted  for  the  operation  of  the 
experimental  plant  for  the  extraction  of  potash  from  kelp,  which  was  authorized 
by  the  Agricultural  appropriation  act  for  the  fiscal  year  1917.  Arrangements 
have  been  made  for  a  certain  degree  of  cooperation  with  one  of  the  companies 
now  operating  on  the  coast,  with  the  result  that  the  expenses  for  operating 
the  Government  plant  will  be  somewhat  less  than  originally  estimated.  It  will,, 
lor  instance,  be  unnecessary  for  us  to  build  or  purchase  a  harvester  at  present, 
though  ultimately  this  may  become  necessary  if  we  decide  to  increase  the  output 
of  the  plant.  A  site  has  been  secured  which  already  contains  a  wharf.  Some 
repairs  will  be  necessary  upon  this,  but  it  will  not  be  necessary  for  us  to  build 
a  wharf.  Also  we  propose  to  start  operations  with  200  tons  of  wet  kelp  per 
day,  ultimately  going  to  400  tons  if  it  is  apparent  that  more  efficient  operation 
can  be  carried  on  with  the  latter  amount.  Taking  these  things  into  considera- 
tion, together  with  the  fact  that  until  the  plant  is  in  actual  operation  it  is 
extremely  difficult  to  estimate  the  sum  of  money  necessary  for  is  operation,  it 
seems  wiser  to  defer  a  request  for  a  further  appropriation  for  operation  until 
some  time  during  the  fiscal  year  1918,  when  it  is  hoped  that  if  it  is  necessary 
to  secure  additional  funds  to  keep  the  plant  in  operation  a  definite  statement 
of  costs  of  operation  can  be  presented.  It  is  desirable,  however,  that  such 
portion  of  the  appropriation  for  the  current  fiscal  year  as  remains  unexpended 
on  June  30,  1917,  shall  be  reappropriated  and  made  available  until  expended. 
To  accomplish  this  it  is  requested  that  the  following  language  be  inserted  in 
the  bill : 

"That  so  much  of  the  appropriation  of  $175,000  made  by  the  Agricultural 
appropriation  act  for  the  fiscal  year  1917  for  the  investigation  and  demonstra- 
tion within  the  United  States  to  determine  the  best  method  of  obtaining  potash 
on  a  commercial  scale,  including  the  establishment  and  equipment  of  such 
plant  or  plants  as  may  be  necessary  therefor,  as  remains  unexpended  is  hereby 
reappropriated  and  made  available  until  expended  for  the  purposes  named." 
Very  truly,  yours, 

D.  F.  HOUSTON,  Secretary. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  How  much  is  that  remainder? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  reason  I  read  the  letter.  I  want  to 
ask  Dr.  Whitney. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Would  you  like  Mr.  Brown  to  answer  that? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  BROWN.  The  amount  expended  is  very  small,  indeed — a  few 
hundred  dollars.  When  the  appropriation  became  available  last 
August  it  seemed  advisable,  before  going  ahead  with  the  Govern- 
ment plant,  to  have  a  complete  examination  and  investigation  made 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL.  32 1 

of  the  situation  on  the  coast  among  the  private  plants  in  operation. 
Dr.  Turrentine  was  sent  to  the  coast  and  spent  six  weeks  or  more  in 
investigating  six  or  eight  larger  plants  that  are  now  operating.  As 
a  result  of  his  investigations  it  became  evident  that  none  of  those 
companies  can  probably  continue  operations  after  a  return  to  nor- 
mal conditions  without  a  radical  change  in  the  system  and  methods 
they  are  using  to  treat  the  kelp.  Accordingly  a  Government  plant 
seemed  to  be  justified,  and  we  have  proceeded  with  the  plans%  So  far 
a  site  has  been  selected,  after  careful  consideration,  which  contains 
a  wharf,  as  stated  in  the  letter  that  was  read,  so  that  we  will  not  be 
required  to  build  a  wharf,  and  a  plan  of  cooperation  has  been  worked 
out  with  one  of  the  large  companies  operating  there. 

Mr.  HAWLEJT.  Have  you  an  option  on  that  site? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes,  sir.  A  plan  of  cooperation  has  been  worked  out 
by  which  we  will  have  certain  advantages;  we  can  either  buy  our 
wet  kelp  from  them  practically  at  cost,  or  we  can  rent  a  harvester 
from  them,  so  that  it  may  be  unnecessary  to  buy  a  harvester  or 
build  one.  That  is  about  the  extent  of  the  situation  so  far,  except 
that  we  have  advertisements  out  for  bids  on  some  of  the  machinery. 
The  actual  expenses  have  been  limited  to  a  few  hundred  dollars  for 
salary  and  expenses  of  Dr.  Turrentine  to  the  coast  and  return. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Can  you  estimate  the  cost  of  manufacture? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Not  a  bit  better  than  I  could  last  year.  The  plants 
that  are  operating  out  there  are  operating  on  the  basis  of  $475  a 
ton  for  potash.  We  have  got  to  get  it  down  somewhere  in  the 
neighborhood  of  $40. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  You  say  four  hundred  and  some  dollars  a  ton? 

Mr.  BROWN.  The  last  price  listed  was  $475  wholesale  price  of 
potash,  and  they  are  not  paying  due  attention  to  costs  of  production. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  But  after  all  there  is  a  cost  to  it. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes;  there  is  a  cost.  One  of  those  concerns  gave  us 
figures  which  showed  a  cost  of  $18  a  wet  ton  to  harvest  the  kelp.  Of 
course,  that  is  ridiculous.  It  can  probably  be  harvested  for  one-tenth 
of  that  sum. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  The  figures  given  a  year  ago  will  have  to  be  revised 
somewhat. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Well,  they  will  certainly  have  to  be  revised  on  that 
basis,  but  I  think  that  is  away  off.  I  think  they  have  charged  up  to 
harvesting  some  costs  that  ought  not  to  go  there. 

Mr.  HOWELL.  Have  you  any  idea  as  to  what  the  actual  manufac- 
tured article  of  potash  is  costing  to  produce? 

Mr.  BROWN.  No;  I  can  not  say.  I  know  approximately  what  they 
are  selling  it  for,  but  that  does  not  show  anything  about  the  cost. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Yes;  but  some  one  last  year  estimated  the  cost.  I 
do  not  know  just  exactly  what  it  was. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  have  the  figure. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  They  were  very  mvich  lower. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  think  they  can  be  made  very  much  lower,  and  other 
operators  are  harvesting  it  at  very  much  less  than  that,  but  there  is 
no  standard  of  cost,  and  it  is  impossible  to  give  any  record  figure. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  My  understanding,  Mr.  Haugen,  is  that  one  of  the 
larger  companies  estimates  that  it  is  costing  them  $75  a  ton  for  the 
potash  they  produce.  Included  in  that  is  an  item  of  $85  a  day  for 


322  AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

fuel  oil,  and  that  is  one  of  the  items  we  want  to  reduce.  They  are 
burning  their  kelp  and  letting  all  their  heat  escape.  Now,  through 
our  method  of  procedure,  we  want  to  utilize  the  heat  and  save  the 
fuel.  We  also  want  to  collect  some  of  the  by-products.  They  are 
letting  the  nitrogen  escape.  We  hope  to  get  it  as  ammonia.  They 
are  letting  all  the  iodine  escape;  they  are  letting  all  the  by-products 
escape;  they  are  paying  no  attention  to  those  things.  It  is  those 
things  that  are  going  to  pay  the  cost  of  manufacture  to  a  large  extent. 
We  can  not  say  much  more  definitely  until  we  see  how  the  things 
work  out  in  practice. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  But  you  expect  to  reduce  the  cost  by  some  improved 
process  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  I  do  not  quite  understand  what  you  are  going 
to  do  by  way  of  cooperation,  and  what  you  are  going  to  do  yourself. 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  are  going  to  have  a  building  of  our  own,  absolutely 
independent  of  anybody,  Mr.  McLaughlin.  We  are  going  to  have 
our  owrn  handling  apparatus  for  handling  the  kelp  from  the  barges 
to  the  plant  and  through  the  plant. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  And  your  own  machinery  ? 

Mr.  BRO\VN.  Yes;  our  own  machinery,  our  own  laboratory,  and  our 
own  office. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  Where  does  the  cooperation  come  in? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  are  cooperating  to  the  extent  of  agreeing  to  take 
the  surplus  kelp  from  those  people  and  buy  from  them  or  rent  from 
them  one  of  their  harvesters. 

Mr.  Ho  WELL.  Is  this  the  company  that  places  an  estimate  of  $18 
a  ton? 

Mr.  BROWN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  In  ascertaining  the  cost  I  should  think  you  would 
have  to  estimate  from  beginning  to  end. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Well,  it  will  have  to  be  worked  out,  and  we  may  have 
to  do  our  own  harvesting  in  the  end. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Well,  it  can  not  be  worked  out  satisfactorily  if  one 
man  figures  it  at  $18  and  another  at  $40,  and  so  on. 

Mr.  BROWN.  It  has  not  been  worked  out  satisfactorily  yet. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  much  are  you  going  to  pay  for  this  site,  or 
is  it  donated? 

Mr.  BROWN.  No;  we  are  not  buying  the  site  outright.  We  are 
renting  it  from  the  company  with  which  we  are  going  into  cooper- 
ation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  the  rent?    A  nominal  rent? 

Mr.  BROWN.  A  nominal  rent.  The  figure  has  not  been  fixed,  but 
we  have  an  agreement  with  the  company  that  it  will  be  nominal. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  cost  of  a  harvester? 

Mr.  BROWN.  That  will  run  from  $15,000  to  $20,000. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  The  harvester? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes;  the  harvester.  It  is  a  great  big  boat  with  a  lot 
of  machinery. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  cost  of  the  machinery? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  And  besides  that  the  barges  cost  $9,000  apiece. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  After  that  stuff  is  cut  and  harvested,  how  long 
does  it  take  to  grow  again  to  be  ready  for  cutting? 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL.  323 

Mr.  BROWN.  They  cut  the  beds  down  so  closely  this  summer  near 
San  Diego  that  they  had  to  stop  cutting.  The  beds  came  back  again 
in  three  months  and  could  be  cut  again. 

Mr.  Ho  WELL.  Wherever  the  Government  ceases  to  continue  to  ex- 
tract kelp,  I  presume  those  buildings  and  all  this  apparatus  will  re- 
vert to  the  company? 

Mr.  BROWN.  No.    We  have  an  arrangement  that  they  shall  not. 

Mr.  HAUGHTON.  What  is  the  cost  of  the  machinery? 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  can  estimate  roughly,  and  only  roughly.  We  pro- 
pose to  put  in  a  battery  of  three  driers  and  they  will  cost  from  $4,000' 
to  $5,000  apiece. 

Mr.  HAITGEN.  How  many  will  you  need? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  will  need  three  to  start  with,  and  if  we  go  to  a; 
heavier  tonnage  basis  later  on  we  shall  need  five. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  would  be  the  capacity  of  three  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Three  would  handle  200  tons  of  kelp  a  day. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Wet  kelp? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Wet  kelp ;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Dried,  how  much  would  it  be? 

Mr.  BROWN.  It  will  give  you  about  20  tons. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Doctor,  your  recommendation  here  is  to  study 
the  situation  thoroughly  before  you  begin  to  expend  this  appro- 
priation? 

Mr.  BROWN.  No;  we  are  actually  issuing  proposals  for  bids  right 
now.  We  propose  to  erect  that  plant  and  get  it  going  just  as  quickly 
as  we  can.  I  hope  to  have  the  men  out  there  and  have  the  plant 
going  up  by  February.  Then,  I  think  that  the  reductions  in  the 
original  estimates,  due  to  this  cooperative  feature  that  we  have  and 
due  also  to  the  fact  that  we  are  going  to  attack  the  problem  with  a 
200-ton  a  day  plant  instead  of  a  500-ton  a  day  plant,  as  we  antici- 
pated at  first,  we  will  certainly  be  able  to  go  forward  until  some  time 
next  winter  with  the  appropriation  we  now  have,  provided  it  is 
extended  and  made  available  until  expended. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  market  value  of  the  dried  kelp  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  $75  per  ton.  Only  one  company  is  marketing  dry 
kelp ;  the  others  are  burning  it  and  marketing  the  ash. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  You  stated  it  cost  $18  a  ton. 

Mr.  BROWN.  That  is  just  the  harvesting  cost. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Yes;  but  the  cost  is  over  $150  a  ton. 

Mr.  BROWN.  For  the  high-grade  muriate  they  can  get  anywhere 
up  to  $500  a  ton. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  is  the  normal  price? 

Mr.  BROWN.  $40;  that  is,  80  per  cent  muriate. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  But  with  your  estimate  it  would  cost  over  $150  a  ton, 
saying  nothing  about  the  manufacture. 

Mr.  BROWN.  I  think  it  is  quite  possible  it  is  costing  that  much  at 
present,  Mr.  Haugen. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  I  am  getting  at  is  this,  if  it  is  going  to  cost 
$150  a  ton  to  manufacture  an  article  worth  $50  a  ton — 

Mr.  BROWN.  It  is  not,  Mr.  Haugen.  It  is  not  going  to  cost  that, 
certainly,  because  we  are  going  to  have  by-products  to  offset  this 
cost  of  manufacture,  and  we  are  going  to  use  more  efficient  methods 
and  apparatus.  Burning  the  kelp  in  the  open,  the  nitrogen  is  going 


324  AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

off  and  part  of  the  potash  is  lost,  and  present  operators  are  conserv- 
ing none  of  the  heat  evolved  in  the  reaction.  Those  things  we  pro- 
pose to  save,  and  it  is  the  only  basis  on  which  I  think  we  can  get 
by  on  the  proposition. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Is  it  not  possible  to  make  some  test  before  you  go 
into  this? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  have  made  laboratory  tests.  We  gave  you  the 
closest  estimates  we  could  last  year,  based  on  those  and  on  observation 
in  the  field.  We  think  we  can  do  it.  I  think  we  have  a  margin  of 
profit,  but  it  has  got  to  be  done  on  a  commercial  scale  before  we  can 
determine  that  fact. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  The  figures  we  have  for  harvesting  are  very  high. 
Some  of  the  companies  are  harvesting  the  kelp  and  I  think  are  doing 

Mr.  BROWN.  Less  than  $2 — $1.50,  $1.75,  or  something  like  that, 
and  some  for  as  low  as  75  cents. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  Wet  kelp? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Harvesting  the  wet  kelp. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  The  thought  I  had  in  mind  was  this:  If  we  can  in- 
vestigate the  probable  cost  before  we  go  ahead  into  the  proposition,  i 
think  that  is  the  general  way  of  doing  things. 

Mr.  BROWN.  As  the  thing  is  being  done  now7,  they  can  not  continue 
it  after  normal  conditions  return,  in  my  judgment. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Mr.  Haugen,  as  I  recall  the  original  estimates,  Dr. 
Cameron  gave  it,  was  about  $20  a  ton  for  manufactured  muriate  of 
potash.  Whether  we  can  actually  do  it  for  as  little  as  that  is  doubt- 
ful, but  we  think  it  can  be  done  for  between  $30  and  $40  a  ton. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  You  believe  it  can  be  done  for  $30  to  $40  a  ton? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  That  is  what  I  was  getting  at. 

Mr.  BROWN.  That  is.  considering  the  by-products. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  You  have  perfected  a  method  by  which  you 
save  the  ammonia.  You  spoke  of  that  as  one  of  the  by-products. 

Mr.  BROWN.  As  one  of  the  by-products. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  Have  you  done  anything  by  way  of  ascertaining 
whether  you  can  save  the  iodine  ? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes.  That  can  be  saved,  and  the  heat  can  be 
utilized,  which  is  probably  one  of  the  greatest  assets  that  is  not  now 
being  used. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  What  can  you  do  with  the  heat  ? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Use  it  in  the  plant  for  drying  kelp. 

Mr.  BROWN.  Use  it  in  the  plant  for  drying 'kelp;  and  there  will  be 
tars  and  there  will  be  charcoal. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  You  have  to  have  a  boiler  plant  for  drying 
the  kelp  anyway  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Not  a  boiler  plant;  we  will  have  rotary  hot-air  driers, 
which  we  propose  to  use. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN .  You  have  to  have  boilers  to  make  the  heat,  and 
then  have  the  rotary  driers? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  shall  use  the  combustible  gas.  so  far  as  it  will  jro, 
in  our  retorts,  and  then  the  excess  we  will  use  in  our  dryers.  We 
shall  have  to  use  oil  fuel  in  our  driers,  because  we  will  not  have 
enough  of  the  others,  but  we  will  have  tars  and  ammonia,  and  we 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL.  325 

will  also  have  charcoal.  If  we  can  not  sell  the  charcoal  and  tar  wt 
can  briquet  these  two  and  use  them  as  fuel. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Doctor,  if  I  am  asked  a  question,  or  any  of  the 
members  of  the  committee,  on  the  floor,  as  to  what  you  have  done  so 
far  with  this  $175,000  appropriation  and  what  you  expect  to  do  with 
the  balance  of  it,  what  would  be  my  answer  to  that  question? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  have  secured  a  site  at  Santa  Barbara,  and  we 
have  secured  concessions  from  the  county  authorities  to  give  us  ex- 
clusive rights  to  certain  kelp  beds.  We  have  investigated  the  plants 
now  operating  and  have  found  that  they  can  not  in  all  probability 
operate  under  normal  conditions,  and  we  are  going  ahead  with  the 
erection  of  the  plant. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  have  determined  in  your  own  mind  that 
it  is  possible  to  manufacture  potash  on  a  commercial  scale  out  of 
kelp;  if  not,  you  are  determined  in  your  own  mind  that  it  is  wise 
to  spend  $175,000  in  finding  out? 

Mr.  BROWN.  In  finding  out.  I  think  you  will  bear  me  out  that 
I  told  you  last  spring  that  I  could  not  say,  and  I  did  not  think  any 
man  could  say,  whether  this  could  be  done  or  could  not  be  done, 
but  that  it  would  be  worth  while  to  find  out  that  fact? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes.     And  where  have  you  located  your  plant? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  have  located  the  plant  in  Santa  Barbara  County. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  How  far  up  the  coast  is  that? 

Mr.  BROWN.  About  150  miles,  I  should  say,  north  of  San  Pedro. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  found  that  to  be  a  better  location  than  San 
Diego  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  It  has  advantages  over  either  San  Diego  or  Long 
Beach  that  have  finally  caused  us  to  decide  to  go  there. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  How  much  did  you  pay  for  the  land  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  did  not  pay  anything. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  How  long  does  your  lease  run  ? 

Mr.  BROWN.  We  have  not  signed  a  lease.  We  have  an  agreement 
with  the  president  of  this  company  we  are  cooperating  with.  We 
shall  have  a  site  there  for  nominal  rent  as  long  as  we  want  it. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  It  is  near  Santa  Barbara? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Within  7  miles  of  Santa  Barbara. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  I  infer  from  what  you  say  that  you  are  not  as  en- 
thusiastic over  this  proposition  as  you  were  a  year  ago? 

Mr.  BROWN.  Yes;  I  am  just  exactly  as  enthusiastic. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Now  turning  to  item  No.  34,  for  the  investiga- 
tions of  soils  in  cooperation  with  other  branches  of  the  department, 
other  departments  of  the  Government,  and  so  forth,  with  an  increase 
of  $30,000. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  I  have  Professor  Marbut  here  who  is  in  charge  of 
soil  surveys. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right,  Dr.  Marbut,  tell  us  briefly  how  you 
wish  to  use  that  $30,000  increase. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  CURTIS  F.  MARBUT,  SCIENTIST  IN  CHARGE 
OF  SOIL  SURVEY,  BUREAU  OF  SOILS,  UNITED  STATES  DEPART- 
MENT OF  AGRICULTURE. 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  with  me  the  financial  state- 
ment for  1916  and  a  statement  of  the  work  done  the  same  year,  the 
latter  shown  by  maps.  Shall  I  display  them  ? 


326  AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION    BILL. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  might  do  so  and  let  the  committee  look 
at  it. 

Mr.  MARBUT.  The  map  of  the  United  States  shows  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  work  in  the  fiscal  year  1916  [indicating  on  map].  The 
colored  areas  there  [indicating],  the  darkened  areas,  represent  coun- 
ties. Those  that  are  in  solid  black  are  counties  which  were  begun 
and  finished  during  the  year.  Those  with  shading  are  counties 
which  were  either  begun  in  the  preceding  year  and  finished  in  1916 
or  begun  in  1916  and  not  finished.  There  was  a  total  area  of  38,671 
square  miles  of  detailed  work  completed  during  the  year,  and  the 
area  covered  by  reconnoissance  surveys  was  8,334  square  miles. 

This  other  map  [indicating]  shows  the  status  of  the  survey  at  the 
present  time  in  the  United  States.  It  shows  by  solid  black  color  all 
areas  surveyed  in  the  United  States  from  the  beginning  of  the 
work — 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  About  what  per  cent  does  it  cover? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Between  30  and  35  per  cent  of  the  total  area  of  the 
United  States. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  right,  Doctor;  you  wish  to  use  that  $30,000 
for  increasing  your  force  and  extending  your  surveys,  I  presume, 
do  you  not? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Yes.  sir.  There  has  been  no  increase  in  the  appro- 
priation for  several  years.  I  am  not  sure  just  when  the  last  increase 
came,  but  for  some  three  or  four  years  we  have  been  running  on 
exactly  the  same  per  year.  In  the  meantime  we  have  been  slightly 
increasing  the  area  of  work  done,  partly  because  of  the  increased 
efficiency  of  the  men,  but  there  is  a  continual  increase  in  the  demand 
for  the  work,  coming  now  largely  from  the  State  experiment  station 
officials.  We  are  cooperating  with  some  20  States.  We  are  not  able 
to  cooperate  with  them,  however,  to  the  extent  that  they  desire. 
What  I  mean  by  that  is  that  we  are  not  able  to  do  as  much  work 
in  those  States  as  they  want  done. 

For  example,  the  Georgia  officials  ask  us  every  year  to  maintain 
several  men  in  the  State  throughout  the  summer.  We  have  not  done 
it,  because  we  could  not.  During  the  winter  we  keep  more  men  there 
than  in  the  summer  time,  but  we  have  not  been  able  to  do  for  Georgia 
what  Georgia  wanted  done.  The  same  is  true  of  Mississippi,  Texas, 
and  several  other  States.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  name  them  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Doctor,  you  have  named  only  Southern  States  as 
being  interested  in  this  proposition.  Is  the  interest  in  this  work, 
confined  largely  to  the  South,  or  is  it  pretty  widespread  ? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  No;  we  are  cooperating,  I  believe,  with  more  States 
in  the  North  than  in  the  South.  In  the  South  we  are  cooperating 
with  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  North  Carolina,  and  Tennessee. 

Mr.  RUBEY.  You  mean  by  "  cooperation  "  that  those  States  are  fur- 
nishing money  to  be  used  with  the  money  we  have  been  appropriating 
here  ? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  They  are  appropriating  money  and  expending  that 
money  in  actual  soil  surveys,  not  as  much  in  every  case  as  we  are 
spending,  but  they  are  spending  all  they  can  get  for  the  soil  surveys. 
In  the  North  we  are  cooperating  with  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Penn- 
sylvania, Ohio,  West  Virginia,  Indiana,  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  Nebraska, 
Washington,  North  Dakota,  California,  and  Missouri. 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL.  327 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Doctor,  what  amounts  are  the  States  expending  in 
cooperation  with  you? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  About  $78,000  a  year.  That  is  the  nearest  estimate 
that  we  have  at  the  present  time.  We  do  not  undertake. to  force  the 
States  to  report  their  expenditures  to  us.  There  are  a  few  States 
who  have  cooperated  with  us.  to  a  limited  extent,  in  the  last  year  or 
two.  for  which  we  have  no  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  furnished  a  detailed  statement  of  that 
last  year  for  the  record. 

Mr.  HELGESEN.  Do  you  do  any  work  in  States  where  they  do  not 
cooperate  ? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Yes;  and  one  of  the  reasons  for  this  requested  in- 
crease is  that  it  will  enable  us  to  do  more  work  in  the  States  with 
which  we  do  not  cooperate.  We  shall  probably  have  to  face  a  demand 
for  increased  cooperation  in  some  States  with  which  we  are  now  co- 
operating, and  also  for  cooperation  in  States  with  which  we  are  not 
now  cooperating.  In  North  Dakota,  Washington,  Iowa,  and  New 
York  the  experiment-station  officials  are  asking  for  increased  appro- 
priations for  soil-survey  work  to  be  done  in  cooperation  with  us. 
The  station  officials  of  Minnesota,  Virginia,  Oregon,  Kentucky.  Okla- 
homa. South  Dakota,  and  Texas  propose  to  ask  their  respective  leg- 
islatures for  money  to  cooperate  with  us,  none  of  them  having  co- 
operated in  1916  with  the  exception  of  a  very  limited  amount  in 
Kentucky.  In  Iowa,  for  example,  a  considerable  increase  for  such 
work  is  being  requested,  and  if  granted  we  shall  have  to  expend  two 
or  three  times  as  much  in  that  State  as  we  have  been  expending  for 
the  last  several  years,  if  we  meet  them  on  equal  terms. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  Do  the  States  do  any  wrork  of  their  own  inde- 
pendent of  you  ?  • 

Mr.  MARBUT.  None,  except  Illinois. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Pennsylvania  does  not? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  No. 

Mr.  MCLAUGHLIN.  All  the  work,  then,  to  which  the  State  money 
is  directed  is  in  cooperation  with  you? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Yes,  except  in  Illinois.  We  are  not  cooperating  with 
Illinois,  and  we  are  not  doing  any  Avork  in  that  State.  We  surveyed 
one  county  some  three  years  ago,  but  that  is  all  that  has  been  done 
by  us  in  the  State  of  Illinois  for  several  years. 

Mr.  LESHER.  What  practical  use  do  the  people  back  home,  the 
farmers,  make  of  this  survey? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  They  do  not  make  a  great  deal  of  use  of  it  directly. 
The  results  do  not  serve  their  highest  usefulness  when  placed  directly 
in  the  hands  of  the  farmer.  It  is  made  for  the  State  experiment- 
station  officials;  it  is  made  for  men  whose  business  it  is  to  advise  the 
farmer.  It  is  not  our  business  to  advise  him.  It  is  our  busines  to  get 
fundamental  information  which  can  be  used  by  officials  whose  business 
it  is  to  advise  him.  The  county  agents  and  the  experiment  officials 
stand  between  us  and  the  farmers. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  The  ultimate  purpose  is  the  farmer? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  The  ultimate  purpose  is  for  the  farmer,  just  as  the 
ultimate  purpose  of  a  large  part  of  the  work  in  the  Agricultural 
Department  is  for  the  use  of  the  farmer,  or,  at  least,  for  assisting 
71680— 1C — -2 


328  AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

him;  but  the  work  of  the  soil  survey  is  not  as  well  adapted  to  being: 
used  directly  by  the  farmer  as  by  the  advisory  officials. 

Mr.  HELGESEX.  What  practical  advice  can  the  experiment  stations 
give  the  farmers  based  on  your  work? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  I  will  undertake  to  answer  that  in  practically  the 
same  way  I  did  last  year.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  asked  the 
question  or  not,  but  some  one  did.  The  experiment  station  officials 
need  to  determine,  for  example,  the  best  methods  of  handling  a  soil 
in  order  to  get  a  maximum  yield  or  quality  of  a  particular  kind  of 
crop.  In  order  to  do  this  they  make  experiments  with  that  crop  on 
a  great  variety  of  soils,  using  the  soil  maps  and  reports  for  locating 
them.  When  the  experiments  show  by  their  results  the  particular 
soil  that  will  give  the  results  sought,  they  determine  the  area  of  ap- 
plicability of  the  results  by  the  intelligent  use  of  the  soil  map.  The 
same  procedure  will  apply  to  the  determination  of  any  other  ques- 
tion which  may  arise  as  to  the  relation  of  soils  to  crops,  -methods  of 
soil  management,  systems  of  farming,  etc.  They  can  not  go  all  over 
a  State  and  establish  experiments  on  every  man's  farm.  That  is 
physically  impossible.  They  can  establish  a  few  experiments  on 
each  of  the  predominant  soils  of  the  State  and  interpret  the  results 
through  the  soil  survey. 

Mr.  RUBEY.  Will  not  these  soil  surveys  be  of  great  benefit  in  farm 
demonstration  work? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  I  thank  you  for  calling  my  attention  to  that.  I 
Avas  going  to  mention  the  fact  that  Congress  has  appropriated  within 
the  last  few  years  a  great  deal  of  money  to  be  expended  in  advising 
farmers.  County  agents  have  been  appointed  in  many  counties  in 
the  United  States.  When  they  were  first  appointed,  a  year  or  so  ago, 
we  were  flooded  with  requests  for  information  about  the  soil.  We 
were  unable  to  give  it  in  most  cases,  because  we  did  not  and  do  not 
have  it.  The  calls  have  not  come  as  rapidly  since  then  as  they  did 
at  first,  because  they  know  we  can  not  give  it. 

Mr.  DOOLITTLE.  Is  Kansas  cooperating  with  you  ? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Kansas  is  not  cooperating  with  us,  but  the  State 
officials  are  very  anxious  to  have  soil-survey  work  done  in  the  State. 
We  received  a  letter  from  the  president  of  the  agricultural  college 
less  than  two  weeks  ago  asking  if  we  could  not  do  some  work  in 
Kansas  next  summer.  Last  year  we  had  a  letter  from  the  professor 
of  soils  in  the  agricultural  college  asking  if  we  could  not  survey  the 
eastern  half  of  the  State  of  Kansas  this  last  summer.  We  did  not 
do  any  work  in  the  State. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  How  long  ago  was  it  since  you  adopted  this  half- 
and-half  plan? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  It  is  not  a  half-and-half  plan.  You  mean  coopera- 
tion? 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  Yes.  t    ** 

Mr.  MARBUT.  It  was  not  a  thing  that  had  to  be  adopted.  It  has 
been  more  or  less  in  operation  for  some  years  and  has  been  increasing 
as  more  and  more  States  come  in. 

Mr.  HAUGEN.  What  percentage  of  the  total  cost  of  the  work  is 
borne  by  the  cooperating  State? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  It  depends  upon  the  State.  Georgia  keeps  one  man 
permanently  employed  in  field  work,  and  we  keep,  on  an  average, 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION    BILL.  329 

two,  I  should  say.  In  several  of  the  States  we  maintain  no  more  men 
than  the  States. 

Mr.  HAUGEX.  It  ts  just  a  matter  of  furnishing  assistance  and  help? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Yes;  and  we  do  as  much  as  we  can.  We  come  as 
near  complying  with  their  requests  as  we  can.  but  in  no  State  do  we 
meet  all  the  requests  that  come  to  us. 

A  few  days  ago  the  Farm  Loan  Board  met  in  Washington.  One 
of  the  members  of  the  board  stated  that  they  expected  to  use  the 
results  of  the  soil  survey  as  a  basis  for  making  loans.  That  will  be 
possible  only  within  the  areas  over  which  the  soil  survey  has  been 
extended. 

Mr.  HAUGEX.  You  mean  one  of  the  bases? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Yes;  I  mean  that  exactly — one  only  of  the  bases  for 
making  loans,  though  it  is  a  perfectly  legitimate  and  a  fundamental 
basis. 

The  extension  of  advisory  work  over  the  whole  United  States, 
the  passage  of  the  farm  loan  act  are  two  very  important  reasons 
why  the  soil-survey  work  should  be  extended  within  the  next  few 
years. 

Mr.  HAUGEX.  Do  other  institutions  loaning  money  make  use  of 
those  surveys? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Yes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  banks  and  real  estate 
agents  use  our  reports  a  very  great  deal,  and  especially  the  western 
banks  engaged  in  farm  loans. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  $30.000  will  allow  you  to  put  on  how7  many 
additional  surveyors? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  It  costs  about  $2,000  a  year  to  support  a  man  in 
the  soil  survey  on  the  lowest  salary  we  pay — about  $1,080  per  year. 

Mr.  HAUGEX.  Do  your  men  come  in  tinder  the  civil  service? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Yes.  We  can  count  on  at  least  10  new  men  with 
this  $30,000,  I  think;  possibly  12. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  field  force  usually  goes  in  threes  or  twos? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Twos;  and  in  cooperating  States  we  put  in  one  man 
and  the  cooperating  State  one  man. 

Mr.  HAUGEX.  The  making  of  a  soil  survey  requires  no  special  ex- 
pert knowledge? 

Mr.  MARBUT.  Yes;  it  requires  a  very  great  deal  of  special  expert 
knowledge. 

Mr.  HAUGEX.  I  understood  not. 

Mr.  MARBUT.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  for  a  man  to  be  an  expert 
or  else  to  develop  expertness  in  order  to  get  results  that  are  reliable. 
The  field  man  must  be  an  expert  on  the  determination  of  soil  tex- 
tures, must  have  at  his  fingers'  ends  a  clear  knowledge  of  all  the 
varied  criteria  that  go  to  make  up  a  soil  individual  and  distinguish 
it  from  another  individual.  If  he  does  not  possess  this  knowledge, 
no  confidence  can  be  placed  in  his  results.  Unless  a  man  knows  these 
many  criteria  he  would  not  be  able  to  distinguish  one  soil  from  an- 
other, except  in  those  cases  where  the  differences  are  great.  To  him 
soil  differences  do  not  exist  in  nature  unless  they  exist  already  in 
his  own  mind. 

May  I  be  permitted  to  say  one  word  more,  Mr.  Chairman? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  MARBUT.  I  want  to  put  in  a  request  just  as  strong  as  I  can  for 
the  addition  of  that  $5,000  to  the  chemical  appropriation.  We  need 


330         .  AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL. 

that  in  the  soil  survey.  Up  to  this  time  the  soil  survey  has  been 
doing  its  work  mainly  on  the  basis  of  field  criteria.  Until  we  had 
worked  that  up  into  such  shape  that  its  use  became  universal  and  the 
relative  value  of  each  kind  was  well  established  we  were  not  in  a 
position  to  make  the  best  use  of  laboratory  datsv.  We  have  now 
passed  that  stage  in  our  existence  and  are  now  in  a  position  to  uti- 
lize more  and  possibly  stronger  data.  In  the  past  our  growth  has 
been  based  on  the  assimilation  and  use  of  the  data  mentioned.  In 
order  to  continue  our  growth  in  the  future  we  need  this  additional 
information.  It  may  be  unfortunate  that  the  scheme  of  creation  did 
not  include  a  well-matured  plan  for  a  soil  survey,  but  it  did  not.  It 
was  necessary  therefore  for  us  to  learn  how  to  make  one.  We  have 
been  learning  and  I  hope  we  shall  continue  to  learn  for  a  long  time 
to  come.  I  sincerely  hope  that  we  may  be  given  the  opportunity  by 
the  acquisition  of  this  additional  data.  I  hape  the  item  will  be 
granted. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  MILTON  WHITNEY,  CHIEF  OF  THE  BTJEEAU 
OF  SOILS,  UNITED  STATES  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE— 
Continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Dr.  Whitney,  will  you  take  up  the  next  item.  No. 
35.  on  page  131,  for  $18,100,  which  is  rio  change  at  all? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  No.  This  is  all  right  this  time.  That  work  is 
going  on  in  a  very  satisfactory  way. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  simply  called  upon  by  the  Forest  Service 
in  aiding  them  in  selecting  agricultural  land? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  the  committee  understands  pretty  well 
what  this  is. 

Now,  go  to  item  36,  which  is  for  general  administrative  purposes, 
and  no  change. 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  No  change. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  rather  a  stationary  appropriation,  I  im- 
agine ? 

Mr.  WHITNEY.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  would  like  you  to  summarize  your  line  of  new 
work  and  submit  a  statement  for  the  record. 

(The  statement  referred  to  follows:) 

STATEMENT    SUMMARIZING    SOME   OF   THE    RESULTS    OF    IMPOBTANT    FEATURES    OF    THE 
WORK    OF    THE    HUKEAU    OF    SOILS    DURING    THE    PAST    YEAR. 

The  soil  survey  during  the  past  fiscal  year  has  identifier!  the  soils  and 
mapped  their  distribution  in  an  area  of  47.000  square  miles  within  the  United 
States. 

Correlative  with  the  regular  soil-survey  work  the  alfalfa  soils  of  the  Pied- 
mont region  of  the  Southeastern  States  have  been  approximately  mapped  over 
an  area  of  several  hundred  square  miles,  extending  from  Virginia  to  Alabama. 

The  relations  of  soils  to  truck  crops  in  the  northern  Coastal  Plain  have  been 
studied  and  their  relative  value  for  given  crops,  determined  on  the  basis  of  ex- 
isting use  in  regions  of  intensive  trucking,  has  been  ascertained  with  a  view  to 
the  extended  use  of  such  preferred  soils  throughout  the  area  of  their  distribu- 
tion. 

In  the  field  of  chemical  investigations  the  bureau  has  continued  to  investigate 
the  composition  of  soil  types  as  JMI  aid  to  the  classification  of  soils  by  the  soil  sur- 
vey ;  has  completed  an  investigation  of  the  lime  compounds  in  soils  and  another 


AGRICULTURE   APPROPRIATION   BILL.  331 

on  the  occurrence  of  the  rare  elements  in  plants  grown  on  soils  containing  these 
rare  elements;  has  continued  investigation  of  the  chemistry  of  the  soil  solution 
find  made  some  important  advances  along  this  line;  and  has  made  a  large 
number  of  chemical  analyses  of  soils  for  other  bureaus  of  the  department. 

At  the  Arlington  Farm  laboratory  analyses  of  the  raw  mix  and  finished 
cement  for  cement  mills  in  the  United  States  producing  more  than  100  barrels 
a  day  are  being  made  to  determine  the  amount  of  potash  volatilized  at  such 
plants.  Results  show  that  this  will  probably  prove  an  important  source  of 
potash,  and  the  attention  of  the  companies  is 'being  called  to  the  possibility  of 
its  recovery.  Similar  work  on  blast-furnace  slags  is  now  being  undertaken. 
The  problems  of  recovering  potash  from  wool  scourings  and  from  natural  brines 
are  also  being  attacked. 

At  Arlington  apparatus  was  installed  and  operated  during  the  year  for 
oxidizing  by-product  ammonia  to  produce  nitric  acid.  This  project  was  com- 
bined with  a  similar  project  undertaken  later  by  the  Bureau  of  Mines,  the 
War  Department,  and  the  Solvay  Co.,  of  Syracuse,  N.  ir.,  one  of  this  bureau's 
chemists  and  part  of  an  apparatus  being  included  in  the  cooperation  plan. 
By-product  ammonia  as  a  source  of  nitrogen  has  been  studied  and  several  publi- 
cations on  this  subject  have  been  issued.  Investigation  of  city  wastes  has  been 
continued,  and  a  full  report  is  in  preparation.  Apparatus  for  the  study  of 
both  the  arc  and  the  Haber  processes  of  nitrogen  fixation  is  now  being  installed. 

An  electric  furnace  has  been  operated  at  Arlington  Farm  smelting  phosphate 
rock,  and  the  phosphoric  acid  so  produced  has  been  collected  with  electric 
precipitators.  This  has  resulted  in  the  production  of  very  high-grade  acid, 
and  it  is  hoped  the  process  may  prove  of  value  in  the  development  of  the 
wrestern  phosphate  beds,  where  freight  charges  make  a  concentrated  product 
essential.  Further  work  is  being  done  to  determine  cost  of  production  on  a 
commercial  scale. 

Promising  laboratory  methods  have  been  developed  at  Arlington  for  produc- 
ing combinations  of  fertilizer  ingredients,  including  ammonium-potassium- 
phosphate,  potassium-phosphate,  and  ammonium-phosphate. 

Plans  are  being  perfected  now  for  the  erection  of  a  factory  on  the  Pacific 
coast  for  the  purpose  of  studying  the  commercial  production  of  potash  and 
by-products  from  kelp. 

(At  this  point  the  estimates  of  the  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey 
were  taken  up.  The  discussion  will  be  found  following  the  hearings 
on  the  Bureau  of  Entomology.) 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  L  =n«P^ 


A     000007103     5 


